Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You only have to make the income guideline to initially qualify. You are then free to make as much money as you want. This is not section 8 where you have to recertify every year. You clearly don't understand what is being built , but that seems willful.
I'm not going to play "free market" because the obscene zoning laws in these northern towns are not "free market" either. You can't say you support free market when it's convenient for you
Can you please elaborate on the nature of these obscene zoning laws and their defiance of the free market? I may be a resident of such a town (Pound Ridge). In what way are the zoning laws obscene? I'm assuming you have something more substantive than just the "exclusionary" 2 acre zoning, since that's really a practical minimum these days for a conforming septic system in towns without a sewage district. How is the free market undermined? If you can afford to be here, and it's a lot cheaper than southern Westchester, everybody is glad to have you.
If you can afford to be here, and it's a lot cheaper than southern Westchester, everybody is glad to have you.
Affordability becomes a question mark when you purposely make zoning laws that make the area less affordable to keep people out that are deemed not desirable. A developer can not freely build low cost housing in the area (apartment building) due to zoning laws therefore the area becomes exclusive to people who can afford it (large single family homes), which in the past was mostly white people fleeing the city to the suburbs to get away from minorities (the term was deemed "white flight"). NYC turn into a ghetto during that time period as property tax revenue and civil services declined. The next generation of white people go by different ideology and are now returning to the city (deemed as gentrification).
Redlining, Mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive covenants were common in the 1950's - 1960's.
Well yes. The problem with welfare is that it creates a disincentive to work. It becomes a self-sustaining cycle. That's basically my entire point. Instead of going on welfare, living in one of these units allows a working class family a chance at life in a nice area without the fear of losing affordability if they have any success in life. It is funny to me that you consider that a socialistic subsidy, but not the home mortgage tax credit. Personally I don't see the difference.
It is a socialistic subsidy because the projects aren't built, paid for, and maintained without taxpayer help. They arent built except for some centrally planned commission trying to socially engineer places. Contrast this with a mortgage deduction is that YOU are not paying the interest deduction on my home. I just get to deduct from taxes I already pay. Clearly not comparable. But nice try.
Affordability becomes a question mark when you purposely make zoning laws that make the area less affordable to keep people out that are deemed not desirable. A developer can not freely build low cost housing in the area (apartment building) due to zoning laws therefore the area becomes exclusive to people who can afford it (large single family homes), which in the past was mostly white people fleeing the city to the suburbs to get away from minorities (the term was deemed "white flight"). NYC turn into a ghetto during that time period as property tax revenue and civil services declined. The next generation of white people go by different ideology and are now returning to the city (deemed as gentrification).
Redlining, Mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive covenants were common in the 1950's - 1960's.
First of all an epic fail in the assumption that any developer in their right mind is looking to build "affordable" housing in an upscale neighborhood. The developer would be looking to build upscale housing, yes possibly multi-unit coop/condo type. But no developer is going to purposely build below market rate housing. Thats absurd. The Feds need to sweeten the deal. So they use our money (taxpayers) to subsidize a project that would never be built on its own merits.
But clearly everything is racial to you. There simply can't be nice towns with nice homes that get bought and sold for market value and welcome whoever can afford it. We must force a beaurocrat's definition of fairness....change the beuarocrat change the definition. Now 1 or 2 acre zoning is racist. According to HUD 0.25 acre zoning is also racist. We MUST engineer things via a giant bureaucracy out of "fairness".
The most ironic part of how "fairness" backfires is the housing projects themselves. Hurting rather than helping the very people they are set up for. Not a single response in any of these threads has argued otherwise. On top of that the 2nd worst thing you can possibly do as a society is to lower mortgage standards and saddle someone who can't afford a home with a gargantuan mortgage relative to income. That was tried also "out of fairness". Maybe the Feds and their good intentions should GTFO of telling people where and to live and how to finance their homes.
First of all an epic fail in the assumption that any developer in their right mind is looking to build "affordable" housing in an upscale neighborhood. The developer would be looking to build upscale housing, yes possibly multi-unit coop/condo type. But no developer is going to purposely build below market rate housing. Thats absurd. The Feds need to sweeten the deal. So they use our money (taxpayers) to subsidize a project that would never be built on its own merits.
I am against subsidize housing. My main point was over how zoning laws can be deem discriminating/racist and not free market. Free market is having the option to pick. The example would be mixed used suburbs which are more free market orientated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus
But clearly everything is racial to you. There simply can't be nice towns with nice homes that get bought and sold for market value and welcome whoever can afford it. We must force a beaurocrat's definition of fairness....change the beuarocrat change the definition. Now 1 or 2 acre zoning is racist. According to HUD 0.25 acre zoning is also racist. We MUST engineer things via a giant bureaucracy out of "fairness".
I am in favor of zoning in order to protect property value and protect the suburbs from developers turning the area into a urban environment. However I can see how someone can label it as racist and discriminating given the past history (white flight era). Would be silly to deny the country did not have slavery and there wasn't racism at certain point in history. A lot has changed since and I think the country is less racist. Today's zoning law might be there to protect the suburb environment but some might see it as trying to maintain the status quo (keep certain people out).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus
The most ironic part of how "fairness" backfires is the housing projects themselves. Hurting rather than helping the very people they are set up for. Not a single response in any of these threads has argued otherwise. On top of that the 2nd worst thing you can possibly do as a society is to lower mortgage standards and saddle someone who can't afford a home with a gargantuan mortgage relative to income. That was tried also "out of fairness". Maybe the Feds and their good intentions should GTFO of telling people where and to live and how to finance their homes.
Once again I am against subsidy and feel like whoever can afford it should live there. My point was on zoning laws and free market. Zoning laws are discriminating in nature so it a catch 22 in my opinion. If you feel strongly that today's westchester county is a representation of free market, you wouldn't need zoning laws. You create zoning laws because you want to ensure westchester county stays the suburb you desire, which goes against free market.
>>snip<<
Once again I am against subsidy and feel like whoever can afford it should live there. My point was on zoning laws and free market. Zoning laws are discriminating in nature so it a catch 22 in my opinion. If you feel strongly that today's westchester county is a representation of free market, you wouldn't need zoning laws. You create zoning laws because you want to ensure westchester county stays the suburb you desire, which goes against free market.
Complete rubbish, unless your view is that anything preventing anyone from doing anything they want is "discriminatory." Zoning also protects against having housing right next to oil refineries, whorehouses next to churches and similar issues. Anyone living in such places understands this.
But back to Westchester. The large lot zoning in northern westchester predates the concept of redlining, discrimination, public housing, etc. It's a holdover from when the area was rural/agricultural. Further, there is little in the way of infrastructure (gas lines, sewers, water and lack of public transportation). Higher density also becomes vastly more difficult when the NYC DEP controls the watershed. It's therefore baffling to me how the mere existence of 1 and 2 acre zoning is in any way 'discriminatory' unless the goal is pure redistribution. But maybe it is?
I am against subsidize housing. My main point was over how zoning laws can be deem discriminating/racist and not free market. Free market is having the option to pick. The example would be mixed used suburbs which are more free market orientated.
I am in favor of zoning in order to protect property value and protect the suburbs from developers turning the area into a urban environment. However I can see how someone can label it as racist and discriminating given the past history (white flight era). Would be silly to deny the country did not have slavery and there wasn't racism at certain point in history. A lot has changed since and I think the country is less racist. Today's zoning law might be there to protect the suburb environment but some might see it as trying to maintain the status quo (keep certain people out).
Once again I am against subsidy and feel like whoever can afford it should live there. My point was on zoning laws and free market. Zoning laws are discriminating in nature so it a catch 22 in my opinion. If you feel strongly that today's westchester county is a representation of free market, you wouldn't need zoning laws. You create zoning laws because you want to ensure westchester county stays the suburb you desire, which goes against free market.
Zoning laws main purpose has always been used by urban planning to create quality of life. You don't want a factory or auto body shop popping up at the end of your cul de sac--it protects residents. The actual purpose of the zoning creates desirability of the town. Throw in good schooling and a halfway decent commute time to NYC and you have yourself a nice place to raise kids and live life--how this is discriminatory is beyond me. You can't help but see every other poster on all these forums (not just NY) is looking for the same thing. A town/village with good schools, good housing inventory and within an hour or so of the city.
When I talk of the free market, it is related to the fact that developers for the redistributive goals of HUD would never even think of putting these projects where they are being forced to without the crutch that is massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, zoning or not.
So you will be asking the Westchester resident for the following: Pay your already high income/property taxes to live where you do. Now pay some extra to put a development no one wants in front or behind of their house out of fear of what it will do the values. And do this bc we must change who lives where bc well we don't like the demographic makeup of your town.
There is no reason why anyone paying $15,000/ year + in property taxes has to be told that their neighborhood isn't " diverse" enough. Let's see how many undesirables will end up living on Hillary's street or whatever street Obummer decides to move his communist rear end to ?
Once again I am against subsidy and feel like whoever can afford it should live there. My point was on zoning laws and free market. Zoning laws are discriminating in nature so it a catch 22 in my opinion. If you feel strongly that today's westchester county is a representation of free market, you wouldn't need zoning laws. You create zoning laws because you want to ensure westchester county stays the suburb you desire, which goes against free market.
True, there is nothing remotely "free market" about the housing industry. It's completely hypocritical for anyone to be against affordable housing on this basis, since there is no such thing.
And Northern Westchester, speaking generally, is one of the least "free market" parts of the region. The entire housing market is basically an artificial construct of zoning based on outdated postwar ideas of suburbia/quasi-country life.
It is a socialistic subsidy because the projects aren't built, paid for, and maintained without taxpayer help. They arent built except for some centrally planned commission trying to socially engineer places. Contrast this with a mortgage deduction is that YOU are not paying the interest deduction on my home. I just get to deduct from taxes I already pay. Clearly not comparable. But nice try.
The mortgage deduction is a MUCH bigger federal subsidy than public housing. The feds spend like 100x more on the mortgage interest deduction than on public housing.
When it comes to housing, the "welfare queens" are homeowners in expensive homes. They get their mortgage interest and property taxes deducted. Renters receive no such benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
